Economics of subpanels in two story dwellings

[VirutalElectrician]

I was chatting with a developer the other day. He was mentioning that due to the high cost of concrete, roofing materials and of course land, it's now becoming cheaper to build up instead of out. For handicap dwellings, this even means it's cheaper to add a residential elevator as well.

This got me to thinking...With the high cost of copper and labor as well, has anyone done the economics of putting a subpanel on the second floor instead of pulling down all that copper for the 2nd floor laundry, whirlpool tubs, home runs for bedrooms, etc? 1-1-1-3 SER AL and a 20 space main lug only panel is pretty cheap compared to the cost of all that copper running to the basement and labor to do it.

I haven't seen anyone taking this approach in the new homes I've toured. Just curious as to why.

 

[LarryFine]

I have done it several times in homes, but generally more for horizontal distance than vertical.

If there is horizontal offset as well as vertical, by all means, it can easily be cost effective.

 

[Zelos Ravioli]

Seems to me an electrician would always want the subpanel option upstairs. Ive done many new homes with a sub upstairs (and I believe tract homes too). So cost wise it must be good, all that extra copper is probably just as expensive as a whole panel with breakers, but the hourly wage time savings is greatly reduced when your not drilling and pulling all those extra holes and pulling longer distances. Most architects never consider having chases for us, or where in hell we are going to drill holes through supporting beams

 

[letgomywago]

I go most bang for the buck so 90 amp breaker and 2 ser to the. The full 100 amps is more money for what will mostly be lighting loads. I aim to put the panel close-ish to the kitchen since I have an outside disconnect. Aluminum isn't more cost effective for me as it used to be. Big house the labor savings could make it worth it. I'd say if you have a 3 story narrow house with a basement that doing the main panel near the kitchen would make sense then do a couple 50 or 60 amp panels one on each floor.

In the end the profit for me is made in efficiency. So if I'm going to have an efficient run in a house it'll only be 3 or 4 home runs on each floor other than kitchen and laundry which are usually in the same area in most designs then it isn't really worth it.

3 14-2s and 1 12-2 is 1.57 a ft in material so unless you have an awkward layout I'm not sure it's cost effective to do that large of a subpanel. Like I said maybe a 50 or 60 amp could be.

 

[PaulMmn]

There's more than lighting!

You need to plan for the MegaHiFi/TV/Theater, with the seat shakers, quad surround, laser projector, and Virtual Reality play area. Oh-- with several lighting themes!

And don't forget the ComputerSystem. Gamer style, with mega monitors and kilo-quads of storage!

Both will need surge protection-- maybe an add-on at the panel will be enough.

 

[jaggedben]

...

I haven't seen anyone taking this approach in the new homes I've toured. Just curious as to why.

Because people in your area are, shall we say, slow to adapt? Seriously I don't know why you wouldn't be seeing this. What you describe has been SOP for multi-story buildings in my area for decades. Meterbank and common area panel on the ground floor, then panels in each upstairs unit.

The only problem is that when people later want to add solar or battery backup or electrify appliances, their panel is in the middle of a nice finished area of the home that you don't want to tear apart. So lately we have been encouraging electrical contractors to take a somewhat different approach. For example, install separate panels for essential and non-essential loads, or run large appliances back to the main. At least leave room for some distribution downstairs.

Of course, that adds cost, and getting clients and ECs to consider factors that don't affect the near term bottom line is like pulling teeth. But it's still worth mentioning...